2 ms·
> I think the answer is: Each kid gets whatever experiences maximize their potential. That’s not controversial, is it? Ideally, they’d learn whatever subjects,
by munificent 3y ago
> I think the answer is: Each kid gets whatever experiences maximize their potential. That’s not controversial, is it? Ideally, they’d learn whatever subjects, in whatever style would best help them flourish into rich, happy, successful adults.
Actually, that isn't what people want.
If your ideal is "what each child receives is what that child deserves" then the only inputs that determine what the kid receives are from the kid themselves. What is missing from that equation? Parents. One of the fundamental goals of almost all parents is help my kid. They want to increase the opportunity and resources their kid has regardless of that kids' potential relative to others or whether the kid deserves those extra resources in any general or moral sense.
This is just another way to think of Pinker's trilemma, which is one of the most insightful things I've ever read about human society:
"No society can be simultaneously fair, free, and equal. If it is fair, people who work harder can accumulate more. If it is free, people will give their wealth to their children. But then it cannot be equal, for some people will inherit wealth they did not earn."
- r00fus 3y agoAt what point is freedom mainly about ignoring inheritance taxes? That’s a highly political view of “freedom”.
- munificent 3y agoBy "give their wealth to their children", Pinker doesn't mean "when they die". He's referring to the more general observation that parents want to take care of their kids as well as they can. But they do that in a strictly unfair way: they prioritize their kids over all other kids simply because they happened to have spawned them, a property the kid has zero control over.